He won't win swing voters and moderates who dislike high taxes and will not vote for someone with a long history of far-left politics and praise for leftwing dictators (Castro, Noriega) and who honeymooned in the USSR and spoke glowingly of the country during the height of the cold war.

He also won't win over enough white working class votes to offset underperformance with the aforementioned groups. Trump solidly has these voters, who will simply vote for "the real thing" ie a populism that more strongly appeals to their racial resentments, instead of the generic class populism pitched by Sanders.

and technological advancement. It's the reason why we can live in an advanced first world nation with all of the things we take for granted.

Of course any powerful system can have issues, why a properly regulated mixed capitalist system is best, one that exists for the needs of the middle class, with a progressive tax system and safety nets.

The Malthusian argument against capitalism is mostly bunk, because capitalism is at its core a technological system which seeks efficiency, ie to do more w/less... why a car today uses far less gas than just 40 years ago.. why computers are tiny when they used to take up an entire room and use tons of electric... why the internet has replaced entire industries and virtualized our experience so we don't require physical locations (like stores) or items (like paper) all of which save the enviroment enormously.

The existence of rich people per se doesn't bug me, status hierarchies exist in all areas of life.

Bryce Harper or Manny Machado getting obscene amounts of money to hit a baseball is unfair, but it's also "unfair" that they're better looking and more muscular than I'll ever be - that's life.

All people can hope for is a fair shake and to have a decent middle class life.

The goal for any political party should be to (a) maximize voter participation while preventing vote meddling/ratfucking, thus closed primaries w/early voting are best (b) prevent party leaders (superdelegates) from publicly stating how they intend to vote (c) prevent supers from voting on the first ballot (d) but in the case of deadlock, then the supers should decide the nominee on the second and subsequent ballots instead of unknown party hacks and backroom dealers. (e) the supers should take into account how the first ballot went ie how the voters voted and the overall feel of how the primaries went.

Sanders does have valid beefs against the 2016 nominating process, but he clearly benefited from the highly undemocratic caucus system which has low turnout and is dominated by activists.

He also clearly benefitted from the fact that the media loves to hate Hillary, loves a horserace, and was just aching to build someone up like Sanders.. who did excite an element of the base (the left and youth) but not most of the base which heavily includes party loyalists, moderates, women, PoC, etc.

The issue is that Sanders is not a Democrat, and has always branded himself an Independent, and railed against Dems well before the Clintons came onto the scene and moved the party to the center (saving the party from itself, which had suffered numerous landslides due to the perception of being out of touch w/mainstream voters).

It is not just that Sanders is to the left - he is alt (independent) left, and not a left-liberal in the Dem tradition. Thus, he saw no need to build strong ties within the party, raise money for the party etc over his many years in politics. This means he had no support from party leaders when he needed it. ALL parties (including far left ones that Sanders may be more sympathetic to) work this way, by you know, politicking and building relationships.

and there is an element that is vicious and vindictive, especially online - that Bernie vowed to address but clearly it still exists.

I call for Bernie to immediately denounce any attempted doxxing or harassing of these people who merely asked him legitimate questions.

Life isn't fair and any candidate should be able to "take a punch": Hillary/Bill was pounded for 25 years; Obama had to deal with the Rev. Wright, the Tea Party and Birtherism; Joe Biden has dealt with all types of attacks including on his family, etc.

Bernie had it easy last time. Hillary, despite being cast as a villain by the right (and some on the left) was always a reasonable person who knew Bernie had no real path to the nomination because he could not win over key Dem base demographics (PoC, metro areas, etc) and thus could not win any of the delegate rich populous states. So she kept the gloves on hoping he would drop out after March 8th so she/they could move to unite the party.

This time it's not going to be easy for Bernie, the gloves will be off, and he should be prepared for that, and to get it from all angles since there are many candidates running.

Authorities say Silver’s body was found facedown still clutching onto several dozen Marist College surveys.
NEWS
November 4, 2016
Vol 52 Issue 43 News · Election 2016
...
Officials stated that in addition to the thousands of presidential election polls found strewn about Silver’s 1984 Oldsmobile 98 following the incident, investigators discovered hundreds of weighted congressional forecasts hidden within the car’s wheel wells. The entirety of Silver’s polls-only and polls-plus forecasts since the beginning of the primaries were also reportedly discovered inside the car’s hollowed-out speaker system.

“After he sideswiped a barricade, his trunk popped open, and all these Zogby and Pew surveys came flying out all over the road,” said long-haul trucker Ernesto Nunez, who described watching Silver struggle out of his wrecked vehicle still clutching an armful of high-sample-size phone and online opinion polls. “Even after they struck him a couple times, you could see he was still trying to hold onto as many A-plus–rated surveys as he could.”

“He might have made it, too, if he’d just dumped all the Monmouth University tracking polls on the ground and made a quick break for the Rio Grande,” Nunez added.
...

Chuck Todd said that while Pence won style points for a potential 2020 run, and Kaine may've interrupted too much for some, Kaine's attacks were relentless and effective in exposing contradictions between Trump and Pence's actual stances, forcing him to defend Trump, while Pence kept shrugging and denying things that both he and Trump have said. And that over the coming days it will continue to gnaw away at them as the media exposes the contradictions.

Robert Costa, Rachel, Eugene Robinson also said similar things. Also about Pence constantly shrugging his shoulders 'huh' and failing to defend against Kaine's barrage of attacks against Trump.

Todd also said that the VP debate (unlike the presidential debate) is more about appealing to and consolidating the base, which both did effectively. Matthews also said similar things, but saw a bigger victory for Pence that the rest did (but saw it more in the context of Pence 2020 than anything else).

Lawrence Odonnel, "I don't think Pence won this debate, left material very rich for Clinton campaign to use.(contradictions, denials)." He said Kaine had no such contradictions, consistent.

Remember, the VP debate isn't a faceoff between each other, but about who can more effectively attack and expose the top of the opposing ticket.

Carville: both sides needed to do what they did (excite the base), will take what they need, by Sunday will be forgotten.

edit to add:

Schmidt: Pence looked good on style, Kaine like special teams guy on football team, ran down the field get dirty, Pence shaking head denying reality, what remains when we look back a week from now, Tim Kaine the one who scored the points.

Murphy: Kaine's content was good stuff, everytime he mentioned Trump he was scoring points. Pence ducked alot of the Trump defense to sell himself long term.

Wallace: didn't like Kaine's performance, thought Pence more statesman like, but he couldn't defend the indefensible (Trump), doesn't think would make difference overall.

After the debate, the markets moved sharply in Hillary's favor and continued to do so as Trump melted down over Machado.

When the NYT tax return story broke on Saturday, I expected Trump's numbers to tank further but the markets remained stable (have moved only about +1 Hillary) , most likely in anticipation of the Wikileaks dump, which the market (imo) believes will balance it out. If that is the case, Hillary is still in very good shape.

This morning (after some bad polls were released, and 538's shitty projections) she was down around 60% and he was up around 36%.

The upward movement today is mainly within the past 2 hours, which is the imo is the most objective metric of who won the debate. the fact that it moved so sharply (when on a typical day it barely moves) says that she won 'bigly' and he was a disaster. many people are saying

"PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – As he seeks re-election to his U.S. Senate seat this November, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey can make an unusual claim. He is the sole Republican nationwide running with the endorsement of top U.S. gun control advocates Gabby Giffords and Michael Bloomberg.

That pair of endorsements could give the first-term senator an edge over Democratic challenger Katie McGinty, a former environmental official in the White House and the Pennsylvania governor’s office. The race is one of a handful of close contests on Nov. 8 that could determine whether Republicans, currently with a 54-46 majority, maintain control of the Senate.
...
Giffords has also endorsed Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, another Republican running for re-election, though Bloomberg has not weighed in on that race."
In Pennsylvania Senate race, unfamiliar battle lines on gun rights

------------
File this under the "with friends like these" and "missing the forest for the trees" categories - especially the PA race, which is very close.

Hey Gabby, wouldn't Hillary being elected with a Dem senate majority lead to more gun control legislation than a GOP senate? Democrats ARE the party of gun control after all, remember? And the GOP is the party of the NRA, remember?